The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
2002 Formal Opinions
Page 2 of 3
-
You have requested our advice as to the required number of State Marshals in each county pursuant to the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38. Specifically, you have requested a formal opinion of the Attorney General as to "whether the Commission has the discretion to determine whether to fill these vacancies or whether the Commission is required [to] fill all vacancies in every county up to the statutory maximum."
-
In your letter of June 17, 2002, you requested that I issue an opinion regarding whether the $12,000.00 annual cap on compensation for members of the Connecticut Siting Council (Council) contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-50j (f) is a limit on total compensation or only compensation for attending hearings.
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether Peter Ellef, the current chairman of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority ("CRRA""), is serving in that capacity without having received the necessary legislative approval.
-
You requested an opinion from this office regarding a complaint that was made under the whistleblower statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61dd. The Division of Special Revenue ("the Division") received a copy of a letter that was filed with the Auditors of Public Accounts under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-61dd. The Division has initiated its own internal investigation into the allegations set forth in the letter. One of the Division's employees, who believes that she has been accused of possible wrongdoing in the letter, has requested a copy of "any documents, notes, or materials, which are the basis for [the Division's] investigation."
-
This is in response to your request for an expedited opinion on whether the Connecticut Lottery Corporation (CLC) may legally sell lottery tickets at a booth within the Connecticut building at this year's Eastern States Exposition in West Springfield, Massachusetts, from September 13-29, 2002.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether a certain bill, proposed in last year’s legislative session, and which is expected to be proposed again, would conflict with the Tribal/State agreements or Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribes concerning the operations of the two casinos in Connecticut. The bill would allow businesses to conduct games of chance under certain circumstances.
-
This is in response to your question as to whether the Compact between the Mohegan Tribe and the State of Connecticut allows off-track betting and viewing of races from hotel rooms at the Mohegan Sun Casino utilizing hotel telephones and television sets.
-
On October 9, 2002, the Freedom of Information Commission (Commission) ruled that the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) was not required to disclose to the public eight documents in CRRA's possession which were the subject of an April 17, 2002, and an April 23, 2002 Freedom of Information Complaint filed by Paul A. Green and the Journal Inquirer. According to the Commission, the eight documents in question either constitute attorney-client communications or relate to CRRA's possible litigation strategy to recover the $220 million loaned to Enron and are, therefore, exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-210(b)(10) and 1-210(b)(4). By letter dated October 11, 2002, you have asked me to obtain from CRRA the eight documents that have not yet been disclosed and release them to the public.
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether the Division of Special Revenue (DOSR) must review and approve the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission's Cashless Wagering System (CWS) for slot machines proposed for use at Mohegan Sun Casino in Uncasville, Connecticut, in advance of implementation.
-
Senator Sullivan and Jepsen, State Capitol, 2002-021 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked for an opinion regarding the provision of § 17b-8(a) of the General Statutes, under which the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services ("Commissioner") is required to submit applications for waivers of federal assistance program requirements to the Joint Committee on Appropriations and the Joint Committee on Human Services ("Joint Committees").
-
The Honorable John G. Rowland, The Capitol, 2002-018 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
On October 9, 2002, the Freedom of Information Commission (Commission) ruled that the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) was not required to disclose to the public eight documents in CRRA's possession which were the subject of an April 17, 2002, and an April 23, 2002 Freedom of Information Complaint filed by Paul A. Green and the Journal Inquirer. According to the Commission, the eight documents in question either constitute attorney-client communications or relate to CRRA's possible litigation strategy to recover the $220 million loaned to Enron and are, therefore, exempt from public disclosure pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §§1-210(b)(10) and 1-210(b)(4). By letter dated October 11, 2002, you have asked me to obtain from CRRA the eight documents that have not yet been disclosed and release them to the public.
-
I am writing in response to your request for a formal opinion as to whether the Department of Banking ("Department") has the authority to reimburse an electronic service provider for reasonable costs associated with complying with an administrative subpoena, in light of the requirements imposed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2706 ("ECPA") and section 36b-26(b) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act ("Act").
-
Your office has asked whether the recent injunction regarding Connecticut's Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA) issued by the United States District Court of Connecticut, and upheld by the Second Circuit, impedes in any way the implementation of Public Act 01-211, concerning victim notification. That Act requires victim notification of applications for exemption from the Sex Offender Registry or its notification requirements.
-
You have requested an opinion concerning the validity of certain claims of testimonial privilege asserted by officials of the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) subpoenaed to testify at a hearing of the Joint Committee on Labor and Public Employees ("Joint Committee").
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether your office is "authorized to issue or accept primary petitions of candidates for state and district offices?"1 It is our understanding you are questioning whether you are required to place the name of a candidate for state or district office2 on the Democratic or Republican Party primary ballot based solely on the fact that the candidate has obtained the signatures of a certain percentage of the political party's registered voters within the candidate's district.